NY Times: Libertarians Soft on Slavery, Confused About Civil War

[emazur]

Kinsella got it right - the governments from both sides of the civil war were the bad guys. That should be the libertarian position

 

[Nobexliberty]

Kinsella got it right - the governments from both sides of the civil war were the bad guys. That should be the libertarian position

And both guys were the good guys too.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Kinsella got it right - the governments from both sides of the civil war were the bad guys. That should be the libertarian position

Most of the people were, too.

It's just a bad topic. There really is nothing good about it, really.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Most of the people were, too.

It's just a bad topic. There really is nothing good about it, really.

Agree ,millions of brothers were forced to kill fighting a war that should never have happend.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Agree ,millions of brothers were forced to kill fighting a war that should never have happend.

Most of the people were bad because, generally speaking, they either held that one group of human beings weren't worthy of the freedom and liberty they themselves enjoyed, or they believed slavery to be a just and appropriate institution. But I repeat myself.

And that is in a nutshell the story of human existence, it seems. Forever doomed to stand in the light of the truth, yet hang his head and see only the shadow that it casts.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Most of the people were bad because, generally speaking, they either held that one group of human beings weren't worthy of the freedom and liberty they themselves enjoyed, or they believed slavery to be a just and appropriate institution. But I repeat myself.

And that is in a nutshell the story of human existence, it seems. Forever doomed to stand in the light of the truth, yet hang his head and see only the shadow that it casts.

Most soldiers did not give a damn about slavery, they mostly cared about their loyalty their state with the expetion of some very poor who joined because of regular meals. And many southerners where conscipts too while very few northerners where conscripts.

 

[tod evans]

Learning different theories about the civil war is never a bad thing, basing opinion on a history written by the victor may be politically correct but is dubious in regards to reality.

I would expect that the truth could have been found by talking to people on both sides of the war who were not politicians, unfortunately at that time most "common" folk were illiterate so anything they had to impart would have been passed by word of mouth.

Reality today is, thanks to 'puters and the interwebs, the common mans voice might actually be heard down the road when our offspring stand in judgement of todays politicians

 

[Brett85]

I'm also not sure why so many libertarians want to bring up an event that happened 150 years ago and debate it, and then advocate a principle that has absolutely 0% chance of ever happening in our country. (Secession)

 

[tod evans]

I'm also not sure why so many libertarians want to bring up an event that happened 150 years ago and debate it, and then advocate a principle that has absolutely 0% chance of ever happening in our country. (Secession)

Could it be the desire to learn from past mistakes?

 

[Brett85]

Could it be the desire to learn from past mistakes?

Secession is a thing of the past that has no chance of happening today, that isn't relevant to today's political debate. It's better to focus on issues that are relevant today like the Federal Reserve, civil liberties, Obamacare, 2nd amendment rights, opposing regulation of the internet, etc.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Secession is a thing of the past that has no chance of happening today, that isn't relevant to today's political debate. It's better to focus on issues that are relevant today like the Federal Reserve, civil liberties, Obamacare, 2nd amendment rights, opposing regulation of the internet, etc.

It is an attempt at herding the cats (or at least corralling them). Secession is not really the point. Nullification is. But then, nullification is tied (by statists) to slavery, which is tied to the civil war and secession. It's a "circle jerk" to confuse the issues really being discussed, which is an out of control and unconstitutional government.

 

[WM_in_MO]

It is an attempt at herding the cats (or at least corralling them). Secession is not really the point. Nullification is. But then, nullification is tied (by statists) to slavery, which is tied to the civil war and secession. It's a "circle jerk" to confuse the issues really being discussed, which is an out of control and unconstitutional government.

Ding ding ding!

And the public education system has cranked out such conforming non-thinkers that any use of big words or concepts triggers a fear reaction.

 

[HigherVision]

New York Times Editor Confesses To Censoring Information About Black Crime

A while back the Los Angeles Times publicly admitted to censoring the race of crime perpetrators when they are black or Latino “so as not to stigmatize any one group.”

Now Philip Corbett, associate managing editor of the New York Times, has publicly admitted to doing the same thing.

The New York Times ran a second article on the gang rape of a Mexican girl by 20+ black males in Cleveland, Texas. The first article clearly blamed the victim and caused such outrage that nearly 50,000 people signed an online petition denouncing the coverage. The Times issued a weak apology.

Now the Times has a second article. Once again focusing solely on portraying the victim and her family in a negative light, while censoring information about the perpetrators. The New York Times has yet to even mention that the perps were all black, and censored all the pictures of the suspect that other news outlets have shown.

When asked why there is no information about the perpetrators race in either article, Corbett answered with combination of truth and lies.

“We would mention race in a physical description only if it really is a detailed physical description that readers would learn something from … But if the description is a ‘white man in his 40s’ or ‘a black man in a hoodie,’ then you’re not really providing any useful information and it could be sort of boiler plate.”

What Corbett means by “boiler plate,” is that it would be “politically incorrect.” He would rather censor information about crime, putting the public at risk, than bring attention to the astronomical rates and horrific nature of black crime.

By the way. If a large group of white men did something this horrible to an eleven year old Mexican girl, it would have been the biggest story in the English speaking world. The New York Times would have been screaming “WHITE MEN do such and such…” and the top of the front page.

For a very detailed analysis of the New York Times’s miscoverage of the horrific Cleveland, Texas gang rape, click here.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Federal goverment should do things that states can't handle themself like defence, pollution and unmentiod things. Not intermingle in stuff that they can handle themself like slavery and you know anything else.

 

[Contumacious]

The NY Times part of the government controlled network,ie, The CCCP is WRONG:


“Though I think Lincoln was the worst tyrant in U.S. history and his war was illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, I do not think the [Confederacy] was some quasi-libertarian bastion of freedom or justified,” said Stephan Kinsella. “The real enemy is, as always, the State — whether it be the USA or the [Confederate States of America].”

.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Federal goverment should do things that states can't handle themself like defence, pollution and unmentiod things. Not intermingle in stuff that they can handle themself like slavery and you know anything else.

Why can't an individual state provide for its own defense? What makes the federal government more equipped to provide defense? Why would a nation be able to provide adequate defense when there are other nations in the world? Would not a global government handle defense better than an individual nation would?

 

[Nobexliberty]

Why can't an individual state provide for its own defense? What makes the federal government more equipped to provide defense? Why would a nation be able to provide adequate defense when there are other nations in the world? Would not a global government handle defense better than an individual nation would?

Same reason 50 guys can kill other people better then 1 guy for simplicyty.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Most soldiers did not give a damn about slavery, they mostly cared about their loyalty their state with the expetion of some very poor who joined because of regular meals. And many southerners where conscipts too while very few northerners where conscripts.

Meh. Most white people at that time in history held very litte regard for black people, period. Most southerners were perfectly comfortable with the institution of slavery.

Yes, they were fighting for "states rights"; the problem, however, is that the "right" that most significantly triggered the war was the "right" to own slaves.

This is a loser topic. Move on.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Same reason 50 guys can kill other people better then 1 guy for simplicyty.

You ignore his question about a global government with this response.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Secession is a thing of the past that has no chance of happening today, that isn't relevant to today's political debate. It's better to focus on issues that are relevant today like the Federal Reserve, civil liberties, Obamacare, 2nd amendment rights, opposing regulation of the internet, etc.

If/when the dollar collapses, not only will states secede from the Federal government, regions will secede from states. And - God willing - individuals will secede themselves.